Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   Will Democrats find their collective spines and be able to repel the nightmare of Conservative extremism that is Neil Gorsuch? Will we be reminded of the GOP's obstruction? It's your Official Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing Discussion Thread   ( nbcnews.com) divider line
    More: Live, Supreme Court of the United States, Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court term, current Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, Supreme Court justice, Supreme Court scholars  
•       •       •

299 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Mar 2017 at 1:29 PM (34 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



132 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-03-20 10:35:00 AM  
Hopefully not.

Nothing will stop him from being confirmed.  If Democrats filibuster, McConnnell will happily ditch it.  And the argument for the average American will be that this WAS a conservative seat on the Court, that Gorsuch IS a qualified jurist, and that both candidates made the appointment of the replacement judge an issue for the election - which the Republicans won.  There won't be much outcry from anybody not already voting Democratic if McConnell gets rid of the filibuster here.

THEN, if 87 year old Ginsburg dies in 2020, the filibuster's already gone.  Sure, if Democrats effectively let Gorsuch in by opposing, but not filibustering the vote, it's easily conceivable that McConnell still dumps the filibuster to replace Ginsburg.  But that would look far worse for the general voting public.

Now, sure, playing openly partisan games with Garland looked bad, too, and ultimately didn't really affect the 2016 outcome, so why should Democrats care now?  Because filibustering Gorsuch is a guaranteed failure.  Don't throw away a chance at influencing the next appointment on a guaranteed failed effort at stopping this one.
 
2017-03-20 11:06:43 AM  

ToastmasterGeneral: Hopefully not.

Nothing will stop him from being confirmed.  If Democrats filibuster, McConnnell will happily ditch it.  And the argument for the average American will be that this WAS a conservative seat on the Court, that Gorsuch IS a qualified jurist, and that both candidates made the appointment of the replacement judge an issue for the election - which the Republicans won.  There won't be much outcry from anybody not already voting Democratic if McConnell gets rid of the filibuster here.

THEN, if 87 year old Ginsburg dies in 2020, the filibuster's already gone.  Sure, if Democrats effectively let Gorsuch in by opposing, but not filibustering the vote, it's easily conceivable that McConnell still dumps the filibuster to replace Ginsburg.  But that would look far worse for the general voting public.

Now, sure, playing openly partisan games with Garland looked bad, too, and ultimately didn't really affect the 2016 outcome, so why should Democrats care now?  Because filibustering Gorsuch is a guaranteed failure.  Don't throw away a chance at influencing the next appointment on a guaranteed failed effort at stopping this one.


Well said. Gorsuch isn't as much of a loony as he could be so I say, let him in. From my perspective it's sickening, but it could be much, much worse. Hoping that all the liberal justices stay healthy for the next four years.
 
2017-03-20 12:04:50 PM  
Will Democrats find their collective spines and be able to repel the nightmare of Conservative extremism that is Neil Gorsuch?

You mean the one they unanimously approved as a circuit court judge in 2006?

That Neil Gorsuch?
 
2017-03-20 12:47:57 PM  
This whole thing just pisses me off.  That seat should have been filled by Obama.
 
2017-03-20 12:54:28 PM  
... he's an extremist?  Yes, anyone who disagrees with me is an extremist and is worse than Hitler.
 
2017-03-20 12:55:39 PM  
Also:  the Boobies is right.

/the Boobies is always right
 
2017-03-20 01:32:55 PM  

LadySusan: Gorsuch isn't as much of a loony as he could be so I say, let him in


So, the standard is "as long as Cleetus in Sisterbanger Hollow AR is a worst jurist, have at"?
 
2017-03-20 01:33:10 PM  
There's always a chance (slim, I admit) that something comes up during the hearings that makes things problematic.

I hope he's not allowed to dodge questioning the same way that Cabinet nominations were, though.
 
2017-03-20 01:35:50 PM  
Democrats should do everything possible to obstruct the stolen seat or they are just accepting that they are not allowed to nominate supreme court justices.
 
2017-03-20 01:37:08 PM  
Will he be any worse than Scalia?

Because Scalia was a f*cking scumbag.

I can't pay attention to this stuff anymore or I'm gonna have a damn cardiac event
 
2017-03-20 01:37:48 PM  
The fundies I keep tabs on are convinced that Gorsuch is one of them.

I'm not sure where they are getting it from but they are acting like Roe is about to go away.
 
2017-03-20 01:38:22 PM  
Better get all lubed up. The STIGGINIT is only just beginning 😞
 
2017-03-20 01:38:34 PM  
If they couldn't block DeVos or Sessions, they won't be able to block this. And as much as I hate Trump, the court can't operate with 8 members forever.
 
2017-03-20 01:39:18 PM  

ToastmasterGeneral: Hopefully not.

Nothing will stop him from being confirmed.  If Democrats filibuster, McConnnell will happily ditch it.  And the argument for the average American will be that this WAS a conservative seat on the Court, that Gorsuch IS a qualified jurist, and that both candidates made the appointment of the replacement judge an issue for the election - which the Republicans won.  There won't be much outcry from anybody not already voting Democratic if McConnell gets rid of the filibuster here.

THEN, if 87 year old Ginsburg dies in 2020, the filibuster's already gone.  Sure, if Democrats effectively let Gorsuch in by opposing, but not filibustering the vote, it's easily conceivable that McConnell still dumps the filibuster to replace Ginsburg.  But that would look far worse for the general voting public.

Now, sure, playing openly partisan games with Garland looked bad, too, and ultimately didn't really affect the 2016 outcome, so why should Democrats care now?  Because filibustering Gorsuch is a guaranteed failure.  Don't throw away a chance at influencing the next appointment on a guaranteed failed effort at stopping this one.


Republicans elected a racist twitter troll for president,  this old timey thinking that republicans will be punished in the future by the electorate as a reason why democrats should capitulate today is pathetically out of touch.
 
2017-03-20 01:39:57 PM  
I think I'd prefer to let the voters decide on the President nominating this guy before we go any further.
 
2017-03-20 01:41:27 PM  

Lost Thought 00: If they couldn't block DeVos or Sessions, they won't be able to block this. And as much as I hate Trump, the court can't operate with 8 members forever.


I'd be fine with that.  Republicans are assholes.
 
2017-03-20 01:41:45 PM  
I'm sure that this thread won't rehash every previous thread...
 
2017-03-20 01:42:33 PM  

dittybopper: Will Democrats find their collective spines and be able to repel the nightmare of Conservative extremism that is Neil Gorsuch?

You mean the one they unanimously approved as a circuit court judge in 2006?

That Neil Gorsuch?


So they never had a spine.
 
2017-03-20 01:43:09 PM  

Headso: ToastmasterGeneral: Hopefully not.

Nothing will stop him from being confirmed.  If Democrats filibuster, McConnnell will happily ditch it.  And the argument for the average American will be that this WAS a conservative seat on the Court, that Gorsuch IS a qualified jurist, and that both candidates made the appointment of the replacement judge an issue for the election - which the Republicans won.  There won't be much outcry from anybody not already voting Democratic if McConnell gets rid of the filibuster here.

THEN, if 87 year old Ginsburg dies in 2020, the filibuster's already gone.  Sure, if Democrats effectively let Gorsuch in by opposing, but not filibustering the vote, it's easily conceivable that McConnell still dumps the filibuster to replace Ginsburg.  But that would look far worse for the general voting public.

Now, sure, playing openly partisan games with Garland looked bad, too, and ultimately didn't really affect the 2016 outcome, so why should Democrats care now?  Because filibustering Gorsuch is a guaranteed failure.  Don't throw away a chance at influencing the next appointment on a guaranteed failed effort at stopping this one.

Republicans elected a racist twitter troll for president,  this old timey thinking that republicans will be punished in the future by the electorate as a reason why democrats should capitulate today is pathetically out of touch.


July 2015: "Don't worry, Trump won't win the primaries. He'll burn out eventually..."
July 2016: "Don't worry, Trump won't win the election. He'll burn out eventually..."
July 2017: "Don't worry, Trump won't ____________. He'll burn out eventually..."
 
2017-03-20 01:44:04 PM  
Democrats will do two things: sh*t and then fall back in it. In other words, business as usual.
 
2017-03-20 01:50:54 PM  

dittybopper: Will Democrats find their collective spines and be able to repel the nightmare of Conservative extremism that is Neil Gorsuch?

You mean the one they unanimously approved as a circuit court judge in 2006?

That Neil Gorsuch?


That was before the Hobby Lobby birth control ruling.
 
2017-03-20 01:50:55 PM  

quatchi: The fundies I keep tabs on are convinced that Gorsuch is one of them.

I'm not sure where they are getting it from but they are acting like Roe is about to go away.


That, and I've heard Gorsuch being quoted as breaking out in tears when he heard Scalia had died.. that's not too normal..
 
2017-03-20 01:51:25 PM  

ToastmasterGeneral: Because filibustering Gorsuch is a guaranteed failure.  Don't throw away a chance at influencing the next appointment on a guaranteed failed effort at stopping this one.


Translation: Dems should protect the filibuster now so McConnell can nuke it in the future
 
2017-03-20 01:52:14 PM  

pastramithemosterotic: Will he be any worse than Scalia?

Because Scalia was a f*cking scumbag.

I can't pay attention to this stuff anymore or I'm gonna have a damn cardiac event


I typically hear him described as a slightly more conservative Scalia.
 
2017-03-20 01:53:14 PM  

dittybopper: You mean the one they unanimously approved as a circuit court judge in 2006?

That Neil Gorsuch?


Lower court judges are bound by precedent. Try not to be so obtuse.
 
2017-03-20 01:53:31 PM  

Holfax: pastramithemosterotic: Will he be any worse than Scalia?

Because Scalia was a f*cking scumbag.

I can't pay attention to this stuff anymore or I'm gonna have a damn cardiac event

I typically hear him described as a slightly more conservative Scalia.


Yeah, but he's also not THAT young.  So we may have another out.
 
2017-03-20 01:53:44 PM  

Lost Thought 00: If they couldn't block DeVos or Sessions, they won't be able to block this. And as much as I hate Trump, the court can't operate with 8 members forever.


Sure it can. The Republicans themselves have said so.
 
2017-03-20 01:54:06 PM  

Alphax: quatchi: The fundies I keep tabs on are convinced that Gorsuch is one of them.

I'm not sure where they are getting it from but they are acting like Roe is about to go away.

That, and I've heard Gorsuch being quoted as breaking out in tears when he heard Scalia had died.. that's not too normal..


I teared too, it was a beautiful day. So many people were hurt by Scalia, it was good to know more couldnt be hurt by him.
 
2017-03-20 01:55:07 PM  

MinatoArisato013: Holfax: pastramithemosterotic: Will he be any worse than Scalia?

Because Scalia was a f*cking scumbag.

I can't pay attention to this stuff anymore or I'm gonna have a damn cardiac event

I typically hear him described as a slightly more conservative Scalia.

Yeah, but he's also not THAT young.  So we may have another out.


49? Thats pretty young.
 
2017-03-20 01:56:02 PM  

TofuTheAlmighty: ToastmasterGeneral: Because filibustering Gorsuch is a guaranteed failure.  Don't throw away a chance at influencing the next appointment on a guaranteed failed effort at stopping this one.

Translation: Dems should protect the filibuster now so McConnell can nuke it in the future


...at a time that is more advantageous for Democrats. For example, closer to the midterms, or to oppose a justice that alters the balance of power on the court (which Gorsuch doesn't do).

If you have one shot, you don't shoot at the first target that comes on the range.
 
2017-03-20 02:00:59 PM  
Gorusch apparently believes that companies need protection from working mothers, not the other way around.

http://theslot.jezebel.com/former-law-student-warns-senate-of-neil-go​r​suchs-backwa-1793439704
 
2017-03-20 02:04:44 PM  

ToastmasterGeneral: THEN, if 87 year old Ginsburg dies in 2020, the filibuster's already gone. Sure, if Democrats effectively let Gorsuch in by opposing, but not filibustering the vote, it's easily conceivable that McConnell still dumps the filibuster to replace Ginsburg. But that would look far worse for the general voting public.


Sorry; I see no evidence that the GOP will hesitate for a milisecond to dump the filibuster as the price of replacing Ginsburg; nor that them doing so will have any practical impact. I also see no evidence that the GOP -- should they be in the minority -- will hesitate for a milisecond to use the filibuster to try and prevent a liberal appointment to Ginsburg.

So, as far as the Democrats are concerned it seems it might as well be done now.

qorkfiend: If you have one shot, you don't shoot at the first target that comes on the range.


If your one shot is a blank, you may as well shoot it off as fast as you can so you can stop being tempted to carry a gun that won't do a goddamn thing.
 
2017-03-20 02:05:07 PM  

Headso: Democrats should do everything possible to obstruct the stolen seat or they are just accepting that they are not allowed to nominate supreme court justices.


I agree.  This a fight worth having, even if everyone knows the Dems are going to lose.
 
2017-03-20 02:06:49 PM  

quatchi: The fundies I keep tabs on are convinced that Gorsuch is one of them.

I'm not sure where they are getting it from but they are acting like Roe is about to go away.



It might be from his days at Oxford. His adviser/mentor John Finnis was a "natural law" proponent (conservative morality) and some of Gorsuch's writings reflect that mindset.
 
2017-03-20 02:07:02 PM  

dittybopper: Will Democrats find their collective spines and be able to repel the nightmare of Conservative extremism that is Neil Gorsuch?

You mean the one they unanimously approved as a circuit court judge in 2006?


Wasn't Garland also unanimously approved for his position, just to be cast aside for purely political reasons? Oh, wait...it's OK when Republicans do it but not Democrats.  Got it.
 
2017-03-20 02:07:58 PM  

abb3w: ToastmasterGeneral: THEN, if 87 year old Ginsburg dies in 2020, the filibuster's already gone. Sure, if Democrats effectively let Gorsuch in by opposing, but not filibustering the vote, it's easily conceivable that McConnell still dumps the filibuster to replace Ginsburg. But that would look far worse for the general voting public.

Sorry; I see no evidence that the GOP will hesitate for a milisecond to dump the filibuster as the price of replacing Ginsburg; nor that them doing so will have any practical impact. I also see no evidence that the GOP -- should they be in the minority -- will hesitate for a milisecond to use the filibuster to try and prevent a liberal appointment to Ginsburg.

So, as far as the Democrats are concerned it seems it might as well be done now.

qorkfiend: If you have one shot, you don't shoot at the first target that comes on the range.

If your one shot is a blank, you may as well shoot it off as fast as you can so you can stop being tempted to carry a gun that won't do a goddamn thing.


It's not guaranteed to be a blank, and even if it was, blanks can be useful if they are used at the right time
 
2017-03-20 02:08:12 PM  

Headso: Republicans elected a racist twitter troll for president, this old timey thinking that republicans will be punished in the future by the electorate as a reason why democrats should capitulate today is pathetically out of touch.


Yep. Democrats have an obligation to stop whatever they can from this administration, and when they can't, to refrain from colluding with a president that seeks to harm this nation. The GOP's base of voters are demonstrably out of touch with anything resembling reality. Pretending you're going to reach that 20% of the nation with anything that you do, let alone expect them to grasp the finer points of parliamentary procedure, is lunacy.
 
2017-03-20 02:11:09 PM  

quizzical: Headso: Democrats should do everything possible to obstruct the stolen seat or they are just accepting that they are not allowed to nominate supreme court justices.

I agree.  This a fight worth having, even if everyone knows the Dems are going to lose.


Except no one will interpret it that way. It will spun as, and interpreted as, politics as usual.

The GOP got away with this when the voters re-elected them to their Senate majority and elected Trump as president. Trying to "teach the GOP a lesson" now is entirely farking useless.
 
2017-03-20 02:13:17 PM  

LadySusan: ToastmasterGeneral: Hopefully not.

Nothing will stop him from being confirmed.  If Democrats filibuster, McConnnell will happily ditch it.  And the argument for the average American will be that this WAS a conservative seat on the Court, that Gorsuch IS a qualified jurist, and that both candidates made the appointment of the replacement judge an issue for the election - which the Republicans won.  There won't be much outcry from anybody not already voting Democratic if McConnell gets rid of the filibuster here.

THEN, if 87 year old Ginsburg dies in 2020, the filibuster's already gone.  Sure, if Democrats effectively let Gorsuch in by opposing, but not filibustering the vote, it's easily conceivable that McConnell still dumps the filibuster to replace Ginsburg.  But that would look far worse for the general voting public.

Now, sure, playing openly partisan games with Garland looked bad, too, and ultimately didn't really affect the 2016 outcome, so why should Democrats care now?  Because filibustering Gorsuch is a guaranteed failure.  Don't throw away a chance at influencing the next appointment on a guaranteed failed effort at stopping this one.

Well said. Gorsuch isn't as much of a loony as he could be so I say, let him in. From my perspective it's sickening, but it could be much, much worse. Hoping that all the liberal justices stay healthy for the next four years.


Letting someone in because there could be much much worse is kind of how we ended up with Senor Cheeto.
 
2017-03-20 02:13:37 PM  

qorkfiend: abb3w: ToastmasterGeneral: THEN, if 87 year old Ginsburg dies in 2020, the filibuster's already gone. Sure, if Democrats effectively let Gorsuch in by opposing, but not filibustering the vote, it's easily conceivable that McConnell still dumps the filibuster to replace Ginsburg. But that would look far worse for the general voting public.

Sorry; I see no evidence that the GOP will hesitate for a milisecond to dump the filibuster as the price of replacing Ginsburg; nor that them doing so will have any practical impact. I also see no evidence that the GOP -- should they be in the minority -- will hesitate for a milisecond to use the filibuster to try and prevent a liberal appointment to Ginsburg.

So, as far as the Democrats are concerned it seems it might as well be done now.

qorkfiend: If you have one shot, you don't shoot at the first target that comes on the range.

If your one shot is a blank, you may as well shoot it off as fast as you can so you can stop being tempted to carry a gun that won't do a goddamn thing.

It's not guaranteed to be a blank, and even if it was, blanks can be useful if they are used at the right time


The Republican Party blocked a sitting president's appointment to the Supreme Court for over a year, directly preceding a general election, for no other reason than they didn't want a Democrat to be the one nominating anything. Simply refusing to let a president carry out their constitutionally mandated duty because you want to run the clock out on him is far, far more egregious than eliminating the filibuster, and really it should have been viewed as the constitutional crisis that it was. The lesson learned by McConnell and his ilk? They can get away with things like that, and no one will punish them.

So if you think that McConnell and co. are going to hesitate for one second to get rid of the filibuster prior to a less-visible midterm election, when it's already been proven that they can get away with far worse, you're a fool.
 
2017-03-20 02:13:55 PM  

ToastmasterGeneral: If Democrats filibuster, McConnnell will happily ditch it.


Then farking make him. Enough of this "oh but they'll just do X" excuse bullshiat. You're doing their work for them.
 
2017-03-20 02:16:35 PM  

Cagey B: qorkfiend: abb3w: ToastmasterGeneral: THEN, if 87 year old Ginsburg dies in 2020, the filibuster's already gone. Sure, if Democrats effectively let Gorsuch in by opposing, but not filibustering the vote, it's easily conceivable that McConnell still dumps the filibuster to replace Ginsburg. But that would look far worse for the general voting public.

Sorry; I see no evidence that the GOP will hesitate for a milisecond to dump the filibuster as the price of replacing Ginsburg; nor that them doing so will have any practical impact. I also see no evidence that the GOP -- should they be in the minority -- will hesitate for a milisecond to use the filibuster to try and prevent a liberal appointment to Ginsburg.

So, as far as the Democrats are concerned it seems it might as well be done now.

qorkfiend: If you have one shot, you don't shoot at the first target that comes on the range.

If your one shot is a blank, you may as well shoot it off as fast as you can so you can stop being tempted to carry a gun that won't do a goddamn thing.

It's not guaranteed to be a blank, and even if it was, blanks can be useful if they are used at the right time

The Republican Party blocked a sitting president's appointment to the Supreme Court for over a year, directly preceding a general election, for no other reason than they didn't want a Democrat to be the one nominating anything. Simply refusing to let a president carry out their constitutionally mandated duty because you want to run the clock out on him is far, far more egregious than eliminating the filibuster, and really it should have been viewed as the constitutional crisis that it was. The lesson learned by McConnell and his ilk? They can get away with things like that, and no one will punish them.

So if you think that McConnell and co. are going to hesitate for one second to get rid of the filibuster prior to a less-visible midterm election, when it's already been proven that they can get away with far worse, you're a fool.


Yeah, because what I said was "they won't get rid of the filibuster".

I swear to god, there is something about Gorsuch threads that renders people illiterate.
 
2017-03-20 02:17:33 PM  

Cagey B: qorkfiend: abb3w: ToastmasterGeneral: THEN, if 87 year old Ginsburg dies in 2020, the filibuster's already gone. Sure, if Democrats effectively let Gorsuch in by opposing, but not filibustering the vote, it's easily conceivable that McConnell still dumps the filibuster to replace Ginsburg. But that would look far worse for the general voting public.

Sorry; I see no evidence that the GOP will hesitate for a milisecond to dump the filibuster as the price of replacing Ginsburg; nor that them doing so will have any practical impact. I also see no evidence that the GOP -- should they be in the minority -- will hesitate for a milisecond to use the filibuster to try and prevent a liberal appointment to Ginsburg.

So, as far as the Democrats are concerned it seems it might as well be done now.

qorkfiend: If you have one shot, you don't shoot at the first target that comes on the range.

If your one shot is a blank, you may as well shoot it off as fast as you can so you can stop being tempted to carry a gun that won't do a goddamn thing.

It's not guaranteed to be a blank, and even if it was, blanks can be useful if they are used at the right time

The Republican Party blocked a sitting president's appointment to the Supreme Court for over a year, directly preceding a general election, for no other reason than they didn't want a Democrat to be the one nominating anything. Simply refusing to let a president carry out their constitutionally mandated duty because you want to run the clock out on him is far, far more egregious than eliminating the filibuster, and really it should have been viewed as the constitutional crisis that it was. The lesson learned by McConnell and his ilk? They can get away with things like that, and no one will punish them.

So if you think that McConnell and co. are going to hesitate for one second to get rid of the filibuster prior to a less-visible midterm election, when it's already been proven that they can get away with far worse, you're a fool ...


ElwoodCuse: ToastmasterGeneral: If Democrats filibuster, McConnnell will happily ditch it.

Then farking make him. Enough of this "oh but they'll just do X" excuse bullshiat. You're doing their work for them.


The Demcoratic Party is in an unconventional war with an unconventional enemy who wants to ERADICATE them.

Stop whining and fight.

It's this "Well, sucks to be us..." defeatist attitude that leads to states Obama handily won in both 2008 and 2012 (many of which hadn't voted Republican since Reagan) going to Trump in 2016.
 
2017-03-20 02:17:47 PM  
So what happens if Trump is revealed to be the Putin-sucking sack of shiat that he is? Do his appointments still carry on, or do they get removed? As I recall, there's no way to -make- a Justice resign.
 
2017-03-20 02:19:06 PM  

ToastmasterGeneral: it's easily conceivable that McConnell still dumps the filibuster to replace Ginsburg. But that would look far worse for the general voting public.


It won't look any worse--a drop in the bucket lost in the signal to noise ratio. And it will get dumped either way. The American public rewards obstructionism, not conciliation. Either a spine will be used or....
 
2017-03-20 02:23:47 PM  

Somacandra: ToastmasterGeneral: it's easily conceivable that McConnell still dumps the filibuster to replace Ginsburg. But that would look far worse for the general voting public.

It won't look any worse--a drop in the bucket lost in the signal to noise ratio. And it will get dumped either way. The American public rewards obstructionism, not conciliation. Either a spine will be used or....

Rep


The American public also has the memory of a goldfish, which means that if it's going to be dumped, it should be done as close to the midterms as possible.
 
2017-03-20 02:25:17 PM  

mainsail: So what happens if Trump is revealed to be the Putin-sucking sack of shiat that he is? Do his appointments still carry on, or do they get removed? As I recall, there's no way to -make- a Justice resign.


Absolutely nothing happens aside from Pence becoming President if Trump is impeached and convicted
 
2017-03-20 02:25:39 PM  

qorkfiend: Yeah, because what I said was "they won't get rid of the filibuster".I swear to god, there is something about Gorsuch threads that renders people illiterate.


Yeah, I could have phrased that better. What I really mean to say is that if you think that there will somehow be negative political consequences to removing the filibuster before a midterm election, when provoking a constitutional crisis on the same subject before a presidential election did not have negative political consequences to the party doing it, you're a fool.
 
2017-03-20 02:27:42 PM  

Bith Set Me Up: Stop whining and fight.It's this "Well, sucks to be us..." defeatist attitude that leads to states Obama handily won in both 2008 and 2012 (many of which hadn't voted Republican since Reagan) going to Trump in 2016.


What the hell are you talking about? We should fight by allowing Trump to nominate a justice to the right of Scalia without any sort of opposition?
 
2017-03-20 02:29:41 PM  

ElwoodCuse: mainsail: So what happens if Trump is revealed to be the Putin-sucking sack of shiat that he is? Do his appointments still carry on, or do they get removed? As I recall, there's no way to -make- a Justice resign.

Absolutely nothing happens aside from Pence becoming President if Trump is impeached and convicted


And down the line if Pence is found to be as well, yes. But then, Trump will have done his duty, no?
 
Displayed 50 of 132 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report